So, for now, Li will be kept indefinitely at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre - although he does get a review in June 2010, and each year after that until basically they decide he can be released - to go murder someone again. Isn't our "justice" system just great?
Back when Li first went on trial, a few months ago, I actually wrote a brief letter to the PM to mention that I thought our "justice" system was crap. I got a generic response from the PMO letting me know that my comments would be forwarded to the proper department. It turns out this proper department was "the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, The Honourable Rob Nicholson".
Here is the letter I received back from Mr. Nicholson. Please note it is your typical Government response. Full of BS and no real answers:
Dear Mr. McQuid:
The Office of the Prime Minister has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence concerning the case of Mr. Vincent Li and the verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. I regret the delay in responding.
Please be assured that the need to protect the public from dangerous persons is given paramount importance in the legal regime that applies to persons who suffer from a mental disorder and are charged with a criminal offence. The twin goals of ensuring public safety and treating the mentally ill offender fairly and appropriately underpin the entire mental disorder regime set out in the Criminal Code. The law provides that dispositions, or orders, be made to govern those who are found by the courts to be unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Review boards have been established in each province and territory to make or review dispositions concerning mentally disordered accused persons, in order to supervise them and oversee their treatment.
I note your concerns regarding the case of Mr. Li. While it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a particular decision made by the courts, I can indicate that an accused person who suffers from a mental disorder and poses a significant threat to the safety of the public can remain in a psychiatric hospital for an indeterminate period of time. The courts and the review boards must take into consideration both the need to protect the public from dangerous persons and the mental condition of the accused in determining the type of disposition that should be made with respect to that person.
I also note your general comments on sentencing. Although the Code sets out penalties attached to specific offences and states the sentencing principles, sentencing decisions are made by the judge who presides over the trial of an accused person. Our justice system is based on the important constitutional principle that judges must render their decisions independently, free from improper influence or interference.
According to principles set out in the Code, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. The legislation expressly requires judges to consider the sentencing objectives of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation of the offender, reparation to the victims and the community, and separation of the offender from society when necessary.
As well, judges are required to observe principles of proportionality between the sentence and the gravity of the offence, consider all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and consider any victim-impact statements. For most offences, Parliament has prescribed only maximum sentences, thereby allowing sentencing judges to determine appropriate sentences that are proportionate to the relevant circumstances of each case.
I agree that more work needs to be done to ensure that sentences are proportional to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the offender. For this reason, the Government of Canada committed to strengthening sentencing provisions for the commission of serious crimes. This has resulted in the introduction and enactment of several key legislative initiatives, including the Tackling Violent Crime Act and former Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment).
The Tackling Violent Crime Act amended the Code to provide tougher mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes; new bail provisions that require those accused of serious gun crimes to show why they should not be kept in jail while awaiting trial; more effective sentencing and monitoring to prevent dangerous, high-risk offenders from offending again; and stronger penalties for impaired driving. The provisions relating to firearms came into force on May 1, 2008, while those regarding the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous and high-risk offenders came into force on July 2, 2008.
The Government also limited the use of conditional sentences for serious crimes with its legislation, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), which came into force on December 1, 2007. As a result, conditional sentences, or “house arrest” as they are often referred to, are no longer available for serious and violent offences including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or sexual assault causing bodily harm, and aggravated sexual assault, when prosecuted on indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more.
I believe that the steps the Government has taken will bring greater certainty and clarity to the sentencing process and ensure that convicted criminals serve a sentence that reflects the severity of their crimes.
In addition, we are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts, who have direct responsibility for the administration of justice, to explore further reforms to the criminal justice system.
I appreciate having had your comments brought to my attention.
Yours truly,
The Honourable Rob Nicholson
Wow. Not much information in there. Basically, our country's justice system is shit and everyone - including the Government - knows it....but Mr. Nicholson mentions that sentences for gun crimes are going to be increased. That's great. Except Tim McLean was killed and decapitated with a hunting knife on a Greyhound bus, not a gun.
Regardless, there is a great article written by Tom Brodbeck of the Winnipeg Sun from June 3 that is a real eye opener...and basically sums up my feelings exactly. You can read the blog here, and I have posted the text in its entirety below.
WINNIPEG -- Now that psycho-killer Vince Li has had his day in court before a sympathetic Criminal Code review board, perhaps we could now convene a hearing for the family of Tim McLean to scope out what needs they have and how the state can help them, too.
Monday's hearing was all about Vince Li -- what he needs, how much better he's doing mentally, how he requested and received a Chinese Bible and what kind of facility he should be housed in.
The review board was very concerned about Mr. Li's feelings and how he may be react if Tim McLean's family read their victim impact statements in front of him in a courtroom Monday. It might hurt his feelings, they thought.
But psychiatrist Stanley Yaren, Li's shrink and advocate, told the board Monday he thought Li would be OK with it. That's super.
No one asked the family how they would feel if they were robbed of the opportunity to make their victim impact statements in front of Li.
After all, this was all about Mr. Li and making sure he's comfortable, not the family. The review board is concerned mostly with ensuring Li is in a good facility with a pleasant environment, where he can watch movies and play cards.
They're also concerned the 24/7 supervision of Li by two correctional officers may now be excessive. Better stop that. It might infringe on Mr. Li's dignity.
So now that we've done all this, shouldn't we turn our attention to the family? They're getting virtually no help or support from the justice system, even though -- through no fault of their own -- they are now in a crisis situation.
And compared with Li, who has round-the-clock support, free meals, medication and nice running shoes, the family is getting next to nothing.
Carol deDelley, Tim McLean's mother, used to drive a school bus before her son was killed.
She had to leave that job, at least for now, and is on long-term disability. She can't drive the school kids anymore because she doesn't have the confidence nor the level of concentration required to perform that very important job.
Her long-term disability pays only half of what she was earning. Anybody going to help out Ms. deDelley, whose life has been turned upside down by this nightmare?
There's lots of help for poor Mr. Li. But there's not much for the family, who are the real victims here.
Perhaps we should have a hearing to determine what kind of support Tim McLean's family should get, including financial support and crisis intervention.
The family was denied standing at Li's hearing. Maybe we could have one where the family gets standing and Li's lawyers don't so we could hear from them and get their input on the situation, including what should happen to Li.
Our justice system is so hopelessly focused on the offender, it excludes almost entirely the needs of the victims and their families.
It was repugnant watching Li's shrink and his lawyer fawning all over him Monday, making sure he was comfortable as family members sat there, shut out of the proceedings and forced to read censored versions of their victim impact statements.
It was obscene.
The least the justice system could do now is hold a hearing for the family to canvass their views and to identify their needs.
I'm not holding my breath.
For more, visit Brodbeck's blog Raise a Little Hell at winnipegsun.com. Reach Tom at 632-2742 or by e-mail at tom.brodbeck@sunmedia.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment